Do Anthropometric Indices Accurately Reflect Directly Measured Body Composition in Men and Women With Chronic Heart Failure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How well anthropometric indices such as body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, waist-stature ratio, and waist index correlate with direct measures of body composition (lean body mass, body fat) in men and women with chronic heart failure (CHF) has not been reported. Body composition was assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in 140 patients with CHF. Age-adjusted Pearson correlations between each index and measures of body composition for men and women were calculated. Diagnostic accuracy of detecting obesity or high central fat was also examined. In men, all of the anthropometric indices except waist index were just as strongly correlated with lean body mass (correlation coefficients varied between 0.56 for waist-stature ratio to 0.74 for BMI) as with percentage of body fat (correlation coefficients varied between 0.72 for BMI to 0.79 for waist circumference). In women, all 4 anthropometric measures were unable to significantly differentiate between body fat and lean body mass. The positive likelihood ratios for the detection of obesity varied between 2.26 for waist circumference and 3.42 for BMI, waist-stature ratio, and waist index. Anthropometric indices do not accurately reflect body composition in patients with CHF, especially in women. When accurate assessment of body composition is required, direct measurements should be obtained.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".